Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33765103›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Machine learning models based on remote and proximal sensing as potential methods for in-season biomass yields prediction in commercial sorghum fields.

Ephrem Habyarimana, Faheem S Baloch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ephrem HabyarimanaCREA Research Center for Cereal and Industrial Crops, Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2731-2744
Faheem S BalochFaculty of Agricultural Sciences and Technologies, Sivas University of Science and Technology, Sivas, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Crop yield monitoring demonstrated the potential to improve agricultural productivity through improved crop breeding, farm management and commodity planning. Remote and proximal sensing offer the possibility to cut crop monitoring costs traditionally associated with surveys and censuses. Fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation (fAPAR), chlorophyll concentration (CI) and normalized difference vegetation (NDVI) indices were used in crop monitoring, but their comparative performances in sorghum monitoring is lacking. This work aimed therefore at closing this gap by evaluating the performance of machine learning modelling of in-season sorghum biomass yields based on Sentinel-2-derived fAPAR and simpler high-throughput optical handheld meters-derived NDVI and CI calculated from sorghum plants reflectance. Bayesian ridge regression showed good cross-validated performance, and high reliability (R2 = 35%) and low bias (mean absolute prediction error, MAPE = 0.4%) during the validation step. Hand-held optical meter-derived CI and Sentinel-2-derived fAPAR showed comparable effects on machine learning performance, but CI outperformed NDVI and was therefore considered as a good alternative to Sentinel-2's fAPAR. The best times to sample the vegetation indices were the months of June (second half) and July. The results obtained in this work will serve several purposes including improvements in plant breeding, farming management and sorghum biomass yield forecasting at extension services and policy making levels.

Indexed as

BiomassMachine LearningBayes TheoremChlorophyllCrops, AgriculturalRemote Sensing TechnologySeasonsSorghumChlorophyll

Identifiers

PMID33765103
PMCPMC7993797

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.